Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » ITU Regional Standardization Forum, SG 5 and SG 12 Regional Group for Africa Dakar, Sénégal, 24 -25 March 2015 TYPOLOGY AND BENCHMARK OF TOOLS FOR ASSESSING THE MOBILE NETWORKS QOS AND QOE SESSION 4: TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR TESTING THE QUALITY OF SERVICE FOR MLUTIMEDIA SERVICES OVER INTERNET/BROADBAND NETWORKS (MOBILE AND FIXED) Speaker: Prof. Sami TABBANE 0
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Agenda 1 Quality KPIs: Measured and Perceived 2 Processes and Tools 3 4 G Innovations 4 Annex: SFM Presentation and Tools 1
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Impact Indexes of Qo. E 2
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Qo. S KPIs Call Blocking Rate Call Success Rate Call Drop Rate Voice quality MSC/BSC/Network Availability International Availability Network Efficiency Ratio SMS Access Success Rate Received SMS Rate MMS Access Success Rate Received MMS Rate Internet Connection Success Rate Data Transmission Throughput Internet Session Maintain Data Connection Establishment Duration Web Service Unsuccessful Rate Apparent Web Service Throughput FTP Data Service Connection Failure Rate Apparent Throughput of the FTP Service Coverage 3
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Which quality indicators are important for the user? Results of a survey conducted in Tunisia (2014) 4
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Telephony service reliability Très important 69. 6% 91, 6% 22. 0% Plutôt important Moyenne / 100 Plutôt pas important 8. 0% 8, 3% Pas important du tout 90, 2 0. 3% Base : 286 répondants 5
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » SMS service reliability Très important 30. 4% 60, 5% Plutôt important 30. 1% Plutôt pas important Moyenne / 100 17. 5% 37, 1% Pas important du tout NSP 68, 2 19. 6% 2. 4% Base : 286 répondants 6
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » MMS service reliability Très important 11. 2% Plutôt important 12. 6% Plutôt pas important 23, 8% 15. 4% Moyenne / 100 70, 6% Pas important du tout NSP 55. 2% 44, 6 5. 6% Base : 286 répondants 7
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Internet service reliability 49. 3% Très important 64, 3% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 15. 0% 6. 3% 32, 2% Pas important du tout NSP 25. 9% Moyenne / 100 72, 7 3. 5% Base : 286 répondants 8
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Call success rate importance Très important 83. 9% 95, 8% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 11. 9% 2. 8% 3, 8% Pas important du tout NSP 1. 0% Moyenne / 100 94, 8 0. 3% Base : 286 répondants 9 9
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Communications quality importance 87. 8% Très important 97, 2% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important Pas important du tout 9. 4% 2. 1% 0. 7% Moyenne / 100 2, 8% 96, 1 Base : 286 répondants 10
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » City indoor coverage importance Très important 89. 9% 97, 2% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 7. 3% 1. 7% 2, 4% Pas important du tout 0. 7% Moyenne / 100 NSP 0. 3% 96, 7 Base : 286 répondants 11
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Outdoor coverage outside cities Très important 80. 1% 91, 6% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 11. 5% 5. 6% 7, 7% Pas important du tout 2. 1% Moyenne / 100 NSP 0. 7% 92, 7 Base : 286 répondants 12
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Indoor coverage importance Très important 87. 1% 94, 8% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 7. 7% 4. 2% 4, 9% Pas important du tout NSP 0. 7% Moyenne / 100 95, 4 0. 3% Base : 286 répondants 13 13
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Incar coverage importance Très important 62. 9% 80, 1% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 17. 1% 8. 7% 18, 9% Pas important du tout NSP 10. 1% Moyenne / 100 83, 5 1. 0% Base : 286 répondants 14
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Call continuity (no call drops for 100 calls) Très important 36. 7% 58, 4% Plutôt important 21. 7% Plutôt pas important 24. 5% 40, 6% Pas important du tout NSP 16. 1% Moyenne / 100 69, 9 1. 0% Base : 286 répondants 15
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Call continuity (no call drops for 50 calls) Très important 38. 5% 56, 6% Plutôt important 18. 2% Plutôt pas important 30. 4% 42, 3% Pas important du tout NSP 11. 9% Moyenne / 100 71, 0 1. 0% Base : 286 répondants 16
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Call continuity (no call drops for 20 calls) Très important 52. 4% 75, 5% Plutôt important Plutôt pas important 23. 1% 17. 5% 23, 4% Pas important du tout NSP 5. 9% Moyenne / 100 80, 8 1. 0% Base : 286 répondants 17
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » The 5 most important criteria (by order of importance) 1 st criteria 25. 9% La couverture à l'intérieur des bâtiments La continuité de la communication, c'est à dire la non existence de coupures 17. 8% 17. 1% L'aboutissement des appels composés La couverture à l'extérieur tout en restant à l'intérieur de la ville 13. 3% La qualité de la communication 11. 2% La Couverture à l'extérieur sur les routes 11. 2% La couverture à l'intérieur des véhicules 3. 5% Base : 286 répondants 18
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » The 5 most important criteria (by order of importance) 2 nd criteria 22. 6% La couverture à l'intérieur des bâtiments La qualité de la communication 19. 0% 17. 6% La Couverture à l'extérieur sur les routes L'aboutissement des appels composés 12. 5% La couverture à l'extérieur tout en restant à l'intérieur de la ville La continuité de la communication, c'est à dire la non existence de coupures 12. 5% 9. 3% 6. 5% La couverture à l'intérieur des véhicules Base : 286 répondants 19
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » The 5 most important criteria (by order of importance) 3 rd criteria 20. 1% La qualité de la communication La couverture à l'intérieur des bâtiments 17. 2% 15. 3% La couverture à l'intérieur des véhicules La Couverture à l'extérieur sur les routes 14. 6% La couverture à l'extérieur tout en restant à l'intérieur de la ville La continuité de la communication, c'est à dire la non existence de coupures 12. 8% 10. 2% 9. 9% L'aboutissement des appels composés Base : 279 répondants 20
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » The 5 most important criteria (by order of importance) 4 th criteria 18. 3% La qualité de la communication La continuité de la communication, c'est à dire la non existence de coupures La couverture à l'extérieur tout en restant à l'intérieur de la ville 16. 0% 14. 4% La Couverture à l'extérieur sur les routes 14. 1% La couverture à l'intérieur des bâtiments 14. 1% La couverture à l'intérieur des véhicules 12. 5% 10. 6% L'aboutissement des appels composés Base : 274 répondants 21
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » The 5 most important criteria (by order of importance) 5 th criteria La continuité de la communication, c'est à dire la non existence de coupures La couverture à l'extérieur tout en restant à l'intérieur de la ville 20. 3% 16. 5% L'aboutissement des appels composés 15. 7% La Couverture à l'extérieur sur les routes 15. 3% La couverture à l'intérieur des véhicules 13. 0% La qualité de la communication 11. 5% 7. 7% La couverture à l'intérieur des bâtiments Base : 263 répondants 22
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Agenda 1 Quality KPIs: Measured and Perceived 2 Processes and Tools 3 4 G Innovations 4 Annex: SFM Presentation and Tools 23
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Qo. S and Qo. E measurements tools Tools: no tool or technique is able to catch all the Qo. S of a network. Operators are using several tools (specific or not) on different interfaces (complementary or not) Passive Measurement tools Field Active Surveyors Generic/ Specific Measurements OMC raw data Measurement techniques Manual/ Automatic Surveys System Passive probes Calls and sessions generators 24
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Main tools for measuring Qo. S and Qo. E parameters Solution Advantages Drive tests Track the events at a geographical level and step by step OMC raw data analysis Geographically (all the cells) and timely exhaustive (all the network) Reduced cost Subscribers service Reflects the Qo. E as actually perceived perception surveys by the users Field surveys Voice quality measurements more objective Drawbacks Not exhaustive (geographical and temporal) Heavy costs and logistics Lacks the tracking of the events linked to a particular call or a session Lacks of measurements in coverage holes Costly (surveys) Subjective Costly (logistic and surveyors) Limited in time and space Low cost Lack of some parameters non available Subscriber’s mobile Geographical and temporal May have an impact on the mobile phone based applications representative, from the services usage of the user 25
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » QOS PARAMETERS MEASUREMENTS § Measurement types BTS Call X Y Z Sp. Q Bad Excellent Good BSC Raw data A B C Value 3. 15 1. 05 0. 95 NE counters OMC counters Measurement field Drive tests MSC Subs. A +33 6 XXXX Capture tool 26 26 Subs. B Dropped Call +33 1 XXXX +33 4 XXXX CDR: Call Data Record No Yes
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » QOS PARAMETERS MEASUREMENTS § Measurements of network performance Back to user Control of network performance Optimization Statistics from different counters and interfaces E 2 E service quality, Qo. E Performance statistics Server application Node B RNC 3 G SGSN UTRAN 3 G GGSN Core nw 27 External nw
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » QOS PARAMETERS MEASUREMENTS • Different services different Qo. S needs o KPIs should be defined separately for each service Example: voice services - CS KPI categories Service accessability Service integrity Service retainability Indicators Measurements Coverage availability Call blockage rate Call establishment delay Ec/No, RSCP Admission control RAB assignment Voice quality Noisy frames (FER), MOS Dropped calls Handover failure No coverage Interference 28
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » QOS PARAMETERS MEASUREMENTS Service KPI § Service FTP: FTP start-up failure rate, FTP abort rate, FTP throughput, … § Service HTTP: HTTP access failure rate, HTTP abort rate, HTTP access time to text, HTTP throughput/delay, . . . § Pusk-to-Talk over Cellular (Po. C): Po. C service availability, Po. C service accessibility, Po. C voice quality, Po. C timely delivery of voice. § MMS: MMS send/retrieve failure rate, MMS send/receive throughput, MMS send/receive delay, MMS end-to-end delay, MMS notification delay. § WAP: WAP failure rate, WAP access time. § Ping: RTT 29
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » FIELD MEASUREMENTS § Example of Net check tool (Infocom) Manufactured for pedestrian measures. It consists of: • A portable equipment, installed in the backpack (based on HTC smartphones), • An application XGMA controlled via a digital tablet allow auditing wireless networks in urban area, in shopping centers and public buildings. This tool can also during the measurement campaign audit the service quality of mobile networks in car, when the vehicular is mobile. 30
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » FIELD MEASUREMENTS § Network Optimization Tools Used are as the following: Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø TEMS Investigation Agilent E 6474 A Neptune CDMA Air Interface Tester (CAIT) TEMS Desk. Cat Actix Analyzer NEMO Gladiator Net. Act Mentum 31
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » FIELD MEASUREMENTS Measurements and softwares GPS External antennas Controler Processing Energy Mobile Qo. S test equipment Man to machine interface 32
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » VOICE QUALITY ANALYSIS Voice quality measurement principle 33
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » OMC MEASUREMENTS Principle Advantages Drawback Harvest from OMC (radio and network) events (counters) report from equipment Treatment of this counters ( with formula elaborated by the operating team or by treatment software) Global statistics: related to an BSC/ MSC/ SGSN/… area Less expensive than field measurements: distant measurements , no necessary to engage a team for measurements , … No localization of problems identified in radio level des (area with no coverage or interference area ) No follow up of one or multiple calls in particularly Radio measurements (KPI « classics » : Qo. S, traffic, Measurements performances, …)Network measurements (KPI « classics » : localization, attachment, calls, …) 34
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » OMC MEASUREMENTS § Tools Proprietaries • Alcatel: RNO • Siemens: SPOTS (Fair interest for statistic reports) • Ericsson: TEMS Analyzer • … Generic (multi-manufacturer) • APIC of Metrica: Evolution problem • My. Com of My. Com: equivalent to Metrica but less adapted to sophisticated reporting • Air. Com: generally preferment for classic statistics • Net. Act SQM: Nokia • OVPI: HP (for IP equipment) 35
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » PASSIVE PROBES Principle Advantages Drawback Measurements Collect in a network equipment (nodes) and/or in an interface the exchanged messages between the network and multiple mobiles (files typically. log) More global than field measurements: related (in function of the used interface) to a cell, to an area BSC/MSC/SGSN, … Less expensive than field measurements: distant measurements , no necessary to engage a team for measurements , … No localization of problems identified in radio level des (area with no coverage or interference area ) Radio measurements (Signal power level in broadcast or point to point, interferences level , power of neighbor cells, cell parameters, …) Exchanged messages and occurred problems during a connection (LU/RU, call/session, HO, …) for all levels les (layers 1, 2, 3 and highest in function of interfaces). 36
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » PASSIVE PROBES § Tektronics: K 12/15 XX (Failed statistics, …, simple and recently improved in term of ergonomic) § Network General: Sniffer Pro + NPO (IP interfaces and analyzes via NPO) § My. Com: NIMS-Pr. Optima (possibility of combination with drive tests in an SIG) § Tekelec: Steleus 2. 5 G (GPRS interfaces) and Steleus 3 G (Iu interfaces ), multiple applicatives for de post-treatment. Preservation of data for few days. Supervision of the GPRS Qo. S on real time and production of Qo. S reports with alerts. 37
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » PASSIVE PROBES § HP: Ovis (Test of data services, production of KPI of availability and of response delay). § Rad. Com: Network Consultant (interfaces A, Gb, Gi, Gn, Iub, Iur, Iu, Gi et Gn): decoding frame , Very good in post-treatment ( mare richer in information than other products, as statistics on PDP liberation causes) § Trafica (Net. Act de Nokia) § Ipanema: Ipanema (Fix probes for data traffic capture of 2, 5 G et 3 G). § Cigale (Astellia): Probes for capturing traffic 2 G and 3 G Problems of update and maintenance comparing to other software manufacturer version 38
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » PROTOCOL ANALYZERS Network interfaces analysis Company Nethawk Agilent Product 3 G Analyzer Signaling analyzer Tektronix K 15 Radcom Performer analyzer Acterna Telecom Protocol Analyzer 39
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » CALLS GENERATORS Principle Generation of serial calls and sessions, … according to predefined scenarios and harvest the ensemble of exchanged messages with detection of possible problems More exhaustive than probes Targeting procedures/mobiles/area/… with problems More expensive than probes Less « independents » than probes (because targeting in Drawback particular scenarios) Radio measurements (Power signal level in broadcast and in point to point, interference level, power of neighbor cells, cell Measurements parameters, …) Exchanged messages during a connection (LU/RU, call/session, HO, …) to all levels (layer 1, 2 et 3). Advantages 40 40
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Tools Benchmark Vendors Opticom Actix JDSU Xceed Tech Aircom Ascom Anite Accuver Accanto Net check Epitiro Ookla Dingli Ericsson Huawei NSN Alcatel. Lucent Qo. S Tracker BI 4 T Info. Vista Astellia Pixipnet V 3 D RTR-Net. Test Marketing institutes Qo. Entum DT measurement tools DT post processing tools OMC tools Performance monitoring tools Probes tools Geolocation tools Customer Qo. S surveys Subjective voice quality evaluation Customer Qo. E tool ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 41
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Agenda 1 Quality KPIs: Measured and Perceived 2 Processes and Tools 3 4 G Innovations 4 Annex: SFM Presentation and Tools 42
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » 4 G main features and the challenges for quality assessment LTE performance requirements ØMobility: low mobility (0 -15 km/h) and high speeds ØLatency: user plane < 5 ms ; Control plane < 50 ms ØImproved spectrum efficiency ØImproved broadcasting ØAll IP ØScalable bandwidth ØCarrier aggregation ØNetwork sharing ØRadio performance enhancement features 43
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » LTE releases evolutions and features 44
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Minimization of Drive Tests Principle • • Defined in Rel-10 with the following objectives: Ability of the UE to include location information as part of the UE radio measurement reporting Ability of the UE to log radio measurements during the UE’s idle state Reuse of radio measurements to those that have to be performed as part of normal RRM procedures, minimizing additional complexity and battery consumption by the UE. 45
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Conclusions Trends in quality measurements • Drive testing was the very first type of tools for assessing the Qo. S, • System measurement tools (probes, OMC raw data, CDR based, …) used to get a wider picture of the network performance, • User experience focused measurements to be closer to user’s perception • Main issue so far in the transition to 4 G and 5 G 46
Thank You! Ø Ø Ø 47 Address: Tel. : Fax: Contact: Site Web: 81, Avenue Hédi Chaker – 1002 – Tunis – TUNISIA +216 71 845 248/ +216 98 377 887 +216 71 845 249 info@sfmtechnologies. com www. sfmtechnologies. com
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Agenda 1 Quality KPIs: Measured and Perceived 2 Processes and Tools 3 4 G Innovations 4 Annex: SFM Presentation and Tools 48
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Synoptic Services for Fixed and Mobile Telecommunications Network and Systems - Created: 1995 by an expert group of Engineers, consultants, specialists, • 20+ Countries around the globe • 40+ Cellular Networks • Activities: Strategic Consulting, Engineering, Technical Assistance and Training in Telecommunications • Customers: Telecom Ministry, Operators, Regulators, Consulting Company. 49
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » SFM Group 19+ Years of experience 20+ Countries around the globe 40+ Cellular Networks 50+ Consultants and Experts Turn Over 2014: MUSD 1. 8 SFM Telecom for local activities SFM Technologies for consulting and expertise SFM International for training 50
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » SFM Group 1800+ Man-Days of Technical Assistance 650+ Man-Days Strategic Consulting SFM in 2014 550+ Man-Days Training With 40% in site 50+Operators, Regulators And Consulting Company 51
Qo. Entum: Automatic Qo. E for Network Performance Qo. Entum: Automatic Qo. E Improvement And Business Monitoring Qo. Entum Solution collects standard KPIs, including Voice and Data services from subscribers 'mobile Androïd smartphones. It reflects end -user experience and network performance perception. Information and measurements sent back to SFM server, where data are processed, stored, analyzed and immediately accessible via a secured web site. 52 « Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E »
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Qo. Entum: Sample screens 53
« Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Qo. Entum: Indicators • CBR, CDR per area, • Mean call setup duration per area, • Signal level per user and per location, • Connected network (2 G/3 G/4 G), • Real-time processing and display of the problems on maps • History of the measurements and comparison of networks performance (2 G/3 G/4 G, region, …). • Data measurements: speed (UL, DL), setup success and delay, • HO rate, • Data activity rate, • Connection and sessions durations, • User information: UE type, location, activated services, used credit/SIM card and service, activity (sessions durations, calls, …), transmitted and received data volumes, … • CDR, CBR, Call Setup Time etc. per region • Data services KPIs: speeds UL and DL per location, • White areas: coverage problems (holes, low signal level, indoor/incar/outdoor coverage), • Network performance tracking, • Compliance with license conditions • Hotspots (density of test mobiles per area), • MOS and PESQ, • Mostly used application per subscribers, • Loss of revenues evaluation • User’s profile (behavior, …) • Perceived user quality Commercial and Marketing Qo. S and Legal Department • Hotspots (density of test mobiles per area), • MOS and PESQ, • Mostly used application per subscribers, • Loss of revenues evaluation • User’s profile (behavior, …) • Perceived user quality Engineering and Optimization USER 54
Tariffs Tracker: Automatic Control Tool of Telecommunications Services Tariffs • • • « Typology and Benchmark of Tools for Assessing Mobile Networks Qo. S and Qo. E » Backup Collected Information Storage, Databases, Transaction History, Generated reports. SIM card platform for the generation of the calls, SMS and data sessions, and the collection of advice of charge. Central platform Scenarios configuration, Pricing formulas Setting, Call generation, Charging Information collecting, Tariffs plans comparing, Audit reports generation. Tariffs Tracker evaluates service tariffs as seen by the subscriber. 55
Contact 56 Ø Adresse: 8, Rue Ibn Sina – El Menzah VI – 2091 Ariana – TUNISIA Ø Tel. : +216 71 284 314/ +216 98 377 887 Ø Fax: +216 71 284 314/ +216 71 754 842 Ø Email: info@sfmtechnologies. com Ø Site Web : www. sfmtechnologies. com
- Slides: 57